Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Tonga v. Scotland – the rematch.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on April 7, 2010

The Attorney-General is at the heart of our legal system, in the domestic sphere she isthe law, the government’s chief legal adviser, and in charge of supervising all prosecutions. There is no higher authority.

When Patricia Scotland, the current Attorney-General, was a junior Home Office minister, she helped to bring in the Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

In keeping with Nu-Labour’s general attitude that none of us ordinary mortals can really be trusted, she helped to write into the act the following words to prove that one did not ‘knowingly’ employ an illegal immigrant:

Examine the material; take a reasonable view on its authenticity; photocopy it; put it away safely where no one could see it or interfere with it; go through the same process every 12 months; and keep the material for two years after she ceased to employ her housekeeper.

She didn’t.

‘I didn’t take copies. It is something I bitterly regret now.’

She now asks us to believe that the out of date passport belonging to Ms Tapui which was produced in court yesterday is not the one that she was shown during Ms Tapui’s interview for the job of housekeeper to Baroness Scotland last year.

Had she taken a photocopy, as required by her of lesser mortals, then she would have been able to prove whether it was or not.

She didn’t, she can’t.

Since one couldn’t possibly discriminate against a person on the grounds that they ‘looked like an illegal immigrant’ in this country, one must assume that Baroness Scotland has also made similar checks on all her other employees, and has the photocopied results of those checks securely locked up in a filing cabinet for two years at least.

Has she?

She has already been fined £5,000 – a mere half of the available fine for this statutory offence. The Labour MP Stephen Hesford, was so shocked that he resigned as PPS to Vera Baird over this issue.

“The attorney general is the chief adviser on legal matters to the government. As a matter of principle I think it is wrong that someone who has the honour of serving in that office should remain, considering the circumstances of what happened [on Tuesday]. If you have the honour to serve, you also have the principles to uphold – that, if things go wrong, you don’t stay in a position that could possibly make your job harder, which this undoubtedly will, or embarrass the government which you serve. I think the law officer’s position at the top of the legal tree is a peculiarly sensitive position and requires extra sensitivity.”

Gordon Brown supported her saying that she ‘had not knowingly’ employed an illegal immigrant – but the offence is not ‘knowingly’ employing an illegal immigrant but failing to follow the procedure which would prove that you had not done so.

Mandelson supported her saying “You have to inform yourself properly before rushing to judgment. That is what the prime minister has done in [Lady Scotland’s] case,”

Section 15 of the Act makes NO mention of the words ‘knowingly’. It is not relevant.

Section 15 of the Act allows for a defence:

(3) An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.

Now she asks us to excuse her because ‘it came at a very difficult time, her Mother and her bother had died the month before.’

Ms Tapui is today in court being prosecuted for fraud.

Is the court likely to accept as a defence that finding herself in need of work as a cleaner, despite being married to a lawyer in Britain ‘came at a very difficult time’ for Ms Tapui?

I doubt it.

I would remind you that Baroness Scotland is the person in charge of overseeing all prosecutions.

Gordon Brown supported her saying that she ‘had not knowingly’ employed an illegal immigrant – but the offence is not ‘knowingly’ employing an illegal immigrant but failing to follow the procedure which would prove that you had not done so.

Gordon Brown has said many things, such as those dodgy donations from David Abrahams were illegal and would be returned. That a weak currency is a sign of a weak Government. That he wouldn’t let house prices get out of hand. That he had abolished boomnbust. That he had saved the world. That he took full responsibility for the smears against Nadine Dorries and that the person responsible had been sacked. That no one would lose out when he abolished the 10% tax rate. That defence spending had increased in real terms every year since 1997. That the Government tax take is less than 40%.

He seems pathologically unable to tell the truth. The media and the opposition seem pathologically unwilling to drag the truth out of him.

A Police Constable, at the very opposite end of the legal spectrum from the Baroness, faces a much stricter professional code of condust, and would likely have been dismissed or required to resign. But of course, our ruling class set themselves much lower standards – then fail to meet them – and then whinge about being expected to meet them anyway.

oh god, not this again!! it’s been all over the media every day for weeks now and dontcha just get fed up with the same old story??!!!!??

patricia scotland, never been elected by anyone for anything, yet able to determine who is fit to live and work in this country, is yet another national disgrace. of course, the new election won’t mean anything to her because she has gained such a position in this country that as usual, she is above most of us!! she’s not trying, like brown, to decieve us is she????

Anna I was being sarcastic/ ironic!! this is a non-story in the msm and will remain so now the election is in full swing. this and several other matters are quietly going to be put to bed like the ascent of the digital services act – a very nasty piece of legislation pushed by mandelson

Well there you have it, a prime example of “do what I say not as I do”, which just about sums up these people. Just typical that Voldemort would get a say in all this, frankly I have no ambition to know how he has spun the situation to suit his own needs, in this case, exonerating Ms Scotland from all (sort of) wrong doing.

This coming from the man who was sacked twice from public office not because it was the right thing to do, but because an angry electorate pretty much dictated that the considerable oaf had to go.

We should get angry more often with our politicians, then maybe they would begin to serve us instead of serving themselves.